STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. LABH CHAND
LAWS(SC)-1993-2-73
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
February 09,1993
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Appellant
VERSUS
LABH CHAND
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DARYAO HURMAT S O SATWA MAHENDRA LAL JAINI ROOP CHAND BRUHAN KUMAR SADASHIV RAMCHANDRA DALVI VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [DISTINGUISHED]THANSINGH NATHMAL ONKARMAL JAWALAPRASAD INDRACHAND PREMSUCH RAMDEO SATYANARAYAN INDRACHAND PREMSUCH SHEWPRATAP TANTIA VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN ALL APPEALS :SUPERINTENDENT OF TAXES DHUBRIIN [RELIED ON]
L HIRDAY NARAIN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER BAREILLY [DISTINGUISHED]
B PRABHAKAR RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [DISTINGUISHED]
Cited Judgements :-
THANESAR SINGH SODHI SON OF SHRI JAGAT SINGH SODHI VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO THE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-3-537] [REFERRED]SURESH SINGH YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1998-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITABEN M PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1996-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
PROJECT MANAGER, CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SERVICE U.P. JAL NIGAM VS. AJAY KUMAR MAURYA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2003-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
BAY SHIPPING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VISAKHAPATNAM VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES VISAKHAPATNAM PORT TRUST [LAWS(APH)-1999-2-38] [FOLLOWED ON]
R MUNUSWAMY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR VELLORE VELLORE DISTRICT [LAWS(MAD)-2008-8-262] [REFERRED TO]
GULF OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2010-3-34] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN CHARGE CHROME LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-1999-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
M VENKATARAMANAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2012-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-1998-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2021-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
PROCTER AND GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD VS. C C AND C EX [LAWS(MPH)-2000-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
HARI OM TRADING COMPANY VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX M P [LAWS(MPH)-1995-1-51] [REFERRED TO]
NANJAPPA NAGAR VEETUR VASATHI SANGAM VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-494] [REFERRED TO]
S MOHAN SAMBASIVAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXCISE CHEPAK MADRAS 5 [LAWS(MAD)-1997-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
K SREEKALA MINOR VS. MANAGER S N V T T I [LAWS(KER)-1995-8-1] [REFERRED]
VENUS SUGAR LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH AND 5 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND 4 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-2-717] [REFERRED TO]
AYODHYA DEVI VS. DDA [LAWS(DLH)-2009-1-89] [REFERRED TO]
DAL CHAND AGARWAL VS. DIVISIONAL MANAGER BANK OF MAHARASHTRA POONA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-1998-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS. JAI SINGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICITY TEST DIVISION JHANSI [LAWS(ALL)-1996-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
GORAKHPUR UNIVERSITY, GORAKHPUR VS. SHESH NATH TRIPATHI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1993-8-86] [REFERRED TO]
METHODEX SYSTEMS PVT LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1996-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
MRUNALINIDEVI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [LAWS(MPH)-2000-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND C EX [LAWS(MPH)-1995-1-33] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVEL AGENTS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-2-207] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR GANGWAR VS. REGIONAL MANAGER U P STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [LAWS(ALL)-1994-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
C/M SAMAJWADI INTER COLLEGE GABHIRAN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY SECONDARY EDU. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-209] [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR NATH TIWARI AND 2 ORS VS. STATE OF U P THRU CHIEF SECY CIVIL SECTT LUCKNOW AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
ARSIYA BANO VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-139] [REFERRED TO]
NANURAM YADAV VS. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES [LAWS(MPH)-2006-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
PROCTER AND GAMBLE HYGIENE AND HEALTH CARE LTD VS. C C AND C EX [LAWS(MPH)-2002-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
M. Ishaq M. Ghulam VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2002-7-130] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA AGROILS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1995-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
TILK RICE VS. DGM UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-4] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTHI DEVASTHAN MODAG BY ITS TRUSTEE GOVINDA GUN VS. LAND TRIBUNAL, BELGAUM [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-266] [REFERRED TO]
SANT SINGH VS. UNION TERRITORY [LAWS(P&H)-1998-9-34] [REFERRED]
JITENDRA KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS [LAWS(UTN)-2021-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
ESSAR STEELS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BIHARI PANDEY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1996-7-48] [REFERRED TO]
D.C.M SHRIRAM INDUSTRIES LTD. UNIT DAURALA SUGAR WORKS, DAURALA, DISTRICT MEERUT AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-380] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH NARAIN PANDEY VS. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT MARKANDEYA UCCHATAR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-2-241] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEO MISHRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2005-12-225] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-238] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-265] [REFERRED TO]
M/S VISHWALEELA STEEL TUBE INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-159] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWALEELA STEEL TUBE VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-180] [REFERRED TO]
ZEENATHUNNISA VS. MOHAMMAD ABBAS [LAWS(APH)-1995-12-49] [REFERRED TO]
BRHAMPAL VS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2000-10-6] [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. AUTO IGNATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-2002-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD VS. ASST PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-136] [REFERRED TO]
AKHLAQ AHMAD KHAN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1997-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
ANURAG AGARWAL VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
C GOPALAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-316] [REFERRED TO]
DABULU SHEDTHI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2005-3-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. MANPHOOL [LAWS(ALL)-1994-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH SINGH VS. DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI PARISHAD [LAWS(ALL)-1997-9-199] [REFERRED TO]
R P PANDEY VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-9-92] [REFERRED TO]
HARYANA HARIJAN KALYAN NIGAM LTD VS. SUDESH JUNEJA [LAWS(P&H)-1998-1-46] [REFERRED TO]
SKS POWER GENERATION (CHHATTISGARH) LIMITED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-298] [REFERRED]
RAVI BUS SERVICE VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2001-7-109] [REFERRED TO]
RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1997-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
PURUSHOTTAM VS. RETURNING OFFICER MALWA SAHAKARI SHAKKAR KHARKANA MARYADIT [LAWS(MPH)-1997-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA [LAWS(MPH)-1998-4-24] [REFERRED]
ISHAR ALLOY STEELS LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1996-9-34] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA AGROILS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1995-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
HIJAM TIKENDRAJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND OTHERS [LAWS(GAU)-2007-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-2000-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
FAKIRE LAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1999-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMAN JOSHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD UMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITABEN M. PATEL AND ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-1996-3-65] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT DROPADI DEVI SARASWATI VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE VS. REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-2002-5-127] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDERA KUMAR GUPTA VS. U P POWER CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
CHAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-9-42] [REFERRED]
JAYANTILAL THAKKAR and COMPANY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2005-3-104] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAMA SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(ALL)-2012-11-34] [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASAD VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(ALL)-2002-1-198] [REFERRED TO]
MAN SINGH VS. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE FATEHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1998-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH KUMAR TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2000-11-116] [REFERRED TO]
CHAKRADHAR MOHAPATRA VS. VICE CHANCELLOR [LAWS(ORI)-2002-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
K D WIRES PVT LTD VS. UOI [LAWS(MPH)-1995-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
THARUMAL AND BROTHERS VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-1995-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
JAI KISHAN S/O SHRI BHARTA RAM VS. DIRECTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-8-163] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM ESSAR STEELS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(MPH)-1995-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER CONSTRUCTIONS VS. SECRETARY PHED [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-64] [FOLLOWED ON]
HANUMAN SINGH VS. BOARD OF REVENUE FB [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD YADAV AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2005-9-100] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT VS. ASHOK KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
G. MURUGAN VS. THE COMMISSIONER, TENKASI MUNICIPALITY, TENKASI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
HAWALDAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-746] [REFERRED TO]
GAGAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-218] [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RAM CHANDRAUL VS. STATE OF U P AND 7 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-343] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Respondent who was in the service of the U.P. Government as an Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Banda, served a notice dated December 19, 1989 on the Secretary, Area Development-2, U. P. Government, Lucknow seeking from the Government, settlement of his outstanding claims by March 31, 1990 and grant of permission to him to retire from service voluntarily from that date. It was stated in that notice that the respondent's outstanding claims remaining unsettled by the Government before March 31, 1990 shall be settled before June 30, 1990 and he shall then be allowed to retire voluntarily. However, changing his stance, the respondent wrote a letter dated December 20, 1989 to the selfsame Secretary seeking grant of the Government's permission to retire voluntarily from March 31, 1990 even if his outstanding claims with it were not settled by that date. But, the Government, did not grant permission to the respondent to voluntarily retire from its service with effect from March 31, 1990 as had been sought by him. Instead, the Governor of U.P. purporting to exercise his powers under F.R. 56 of the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Parts II-IV, as amended up to date (to be referred to as 'F.R. 56'), issued an order dated January 6, .1990 compulsorily retiring the respondent from the Government service with effect from 6-1-1990 and giving him the benefit of three months' wages at the last drawn rates. No doubt, that order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was challenged by him in a writ petition, W.P. No. 1980 of 1990 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. But, a Division Bench of that Court, refused to entertain that writ petition and dismissed it by its order dated March 29, 1990, which read :
"Learned counsel for the State has produced the record and has also filed counter-affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. However, after looking into the record we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to bypass the alternative remedy available to him before the UP. Public Services Tribunal. On account of this alternative remedy being available to the petitioner this petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order if any to vacate."
(3.)The validity of the said order of dismissal of the writ petition made by the Division Bench of the High Court was not questioned by the respondent in any appeal or any other legal proceeding. The respondent did not also choose to approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, to seek relieves respecting the order of his compulsory retirement although the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed his writ petition for not availing of the alternative remedy before that Tribunal.
(2.)Respondent who was in the service of the U.P. Government as an Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Banda, served a notice dated December 19, 1989 on the Secretary, Area Development-2, U. P. Government, Lucknow seeking from the Government, settlement of his outstanding claims by March 31, 1990 and grant of permission to him to retire from service voluntarily from that date. It was stated in that notice that the respondent's outstanding claims remaining unsettled by the Government before March 31, 1990 shall be settled before June 30, 1990 and he shall then be allowed to retire voluntarily. However, changing his stance, the respondent wrote a letter dated December 20, 1989 to the selfsame Secretary seeking grant of the Government's permission to retire voluntarily from March 31, 1990 even if his outstanding claims with it were not settled by that date. But, the Government, did not grant permission to the respondent to voluntarily retire from its service with effect from March 31, 1990 as had been sought by him. Instead, the Governor of U.P. purporting to exercise his powers under F.R. 56 of the Financial Hand Book Volume II, Parts II-IV, as amended up to date (to be referred to as 'F.R. 56'), issued an order dated January 6, .1990 compulsorily retiring the respondent from the Government service with effect from 6-1-1990 and giving him the benefit of three months' wages at the last drawn rates. No doubt, that order of compulsory retirement of the respondent was challenged by him in a writ petition, W.P. No. 1980 of 1990 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. But, a Division Bench of that Court, refused to entertain that writ petition and dismissed it by its order dated March 29, 1990, which read :
"Learned counsel for the State has produced the record and has also filed counter-affidavit to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed. However, after looking into the record we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case in which the petitioner should be allowed to bypass the alternative remedy available to him before the UP. Public Services Tribunal. On account of this alternative remedy being available to the petitioner this petition is dismissed in limine. Interim order if any to vacate."
(3.)The validity of the said order of dismissal of the writ petition made by the Division Bench of the High Court was not questioned by the respondent in any appeal or any other legal proceeding. The respondent did not also choose to approach the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, to seek relieves respecting the order of his compulsory retirement although the Division Bench of the High Court had dismissed his writ petition for not availing of the alternative remedy before that Tribunal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.